ARNOLD RODRICKS & ANR. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 885 · Decided: 14-03-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

' 
• 
-
ARNOLD RODRICKS & ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
March 14, 1966. 
B 
[P. B. GAJENDRAOADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYA-
c 
D 
• 
J 
G 
H 
TULLAH, J.C. SHAH ANDS. M. SIKRI, JJ.J 
The Commissioners of Divislons Act, 1957 (Bom. Act 8 of 1958), 
u. 3(3) and 3(4)-Validity of-Delegation of powers to State Govern-
ment whether excessive. 
Land Acquisition Act (1 of 1894), s. 3(f)(2) introduced by Bombay 
Amendment A.ct 35 of 1953-Amended definition of 'public purposl' 
whether valid. 
The oftice of Commissioner was abolished in Bombay State in 1950 
but it was revived in 1958 by the Commiosioners of Division Act passed 
by the Bombay Legislature. The Schedule to the Act amended various 
enactments for the pnrpose of conferring powers on Commissioners ther• 
under. Sections 3(3) of the Act gave power to the State Government by 
notification to amend or delete any entry in the Schedule for the purpose 
of imposing any conditions or restrictions in the exercise of powers and 
diacharge of duties conferred or imposed on the Commissioner or to 
withdraw them. Section 3 ( 4) of the Act gave the State Government power 
to confer and impose on the Commissioner powers and dnties under any 
other enactment for the time being in force and for that purpose by notifi-
cation to amend that enactment. 
By virtue of this power the State Govern-
ment of Bombay by notification conferred certain powers under the Land 
Acquisition Act on the Commissioner and amended the relevant sections 
of the Land Acquisition Act accordingly. Under the powers so conferred 
the Commissioner of Bombay, in 1962, commenced land acquis'tion pr(). 
ceeding in respect of certain lands owned by the appellants, the alleged 
purpose of the acquisition being "development and utilisation of the sa'd 
lands as an industrial and residential area". 
The petitioner filed 
writ 
peftions under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenging the acquisition 
proceedings on the grounds, mainly, that ( i) s. 3 ( 3) and 3 ( 4) of the 
Commissioners Act constituted excessive delegation of power to the State 
Government and amounted to abdication of its functions by the State 
Legislation and that (ii) definition of 'public purpose' as amendeJ by the 
Bombay Legislature by introducing s. 3(f)(2) in the Land Acquisition Ad 
was ultra vires. 
HELD: Per Gajendragadkar, C.J., Hidayatullah and Sikri, JJ.-(1) 
The object of s. 3(3) of the Commissioners Act is two fold; first to enable 
the Government to impose any conditions or restr"ctions on the exercise of 
powers and discharge of duties on Commissioners and secondly to withdraw 
them in case it is felt that the Commissioner should not exercise these 
powers. There can be no objection to this since the State Government is 
in charge of the administration and the whole object of the Commi5'ioners 
Act is to enable it to run the administration as smoothly as possible. The law 
which the Commissioners or the State Government or the other author'ties 
have to administer remain& the same; it is only the authority that is changed. 
[897 E..OJ 
<ii) It cannot be said that the powers conferred under s. 3 ( 3) and 
3(4) on the State Government are unguided. Sections 6 and 7 of the Act 
885 
88 6 
SUP.11.ElrU! 
COU.11.T 
REP-Oii.TS 
( 1966) 3 S.C.R. 
indicate the kinds of powers which may be conferred on the Commiuioner. 
Further the very nature of the office held by the Commissioner and 1ho 
duties performed by him up to 1950 would show that it is only tho dutieo 
Of the Slate Government and of officers of equivalent rank discharging 
revenue and executive duties which would be conferred on the Commis-
lli<>neT. 
Thero can be no difference in principle between the Slate Lep 
lature insening a section in an Act enabling the Stale Government to 
delegate its power to another authority and the Legislature in viow of the 
change in tho administrative set-up conferring power on the State Oovom-
ment 10 confer not only ill! own duties on Commissionera but also of other 
officers performing executive and revenue duties. [895 C-B] 
(ill) The State Legislature cannot be said to have abdicated its powers 
in favour of the executi\"e for it has laid down the legislative policy and 
wisely left it to the State Government to reorganise the administration 
consequent on the setting up of Commissioners Divis:ons. The State Gov-
ernment is after all in charge of the administration and it knows specially 
in view of its previous experience what p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.